The constitution of the UK is very unique compared to the constitutions in other European countries. In this essay, I will talk about the features of the UK constitution, the sources of the constitution and the principles, which guide it. This essay will also include key points about the uncodified nature of the constitution, and the advantages and disadvantages that come along with it. A topic of discussion has been whether or not the uncodified nature of the constitution of the UK should remain the same, or if, it should be codified. I will further discuss these ideas in this essay and highlight the pros and cons from both sides – codified and uncodified.
The absence of a codified constitution raises numerous questions. The main one being,
…show more content…
However, the UK has remained the same throughout history. Some countries have changed their constitution as a result of civil disorder, while others have changed it just for the benefit of the countries. There have been many attempts in the past to change the constitutional framework of the UK. In 2003, under Tony Blair’s regime, the UK and the US controversially sent troops in Iraq on the basis that it had “weapons of mass destruction” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27852832) As a result a great discussion arose. Would it be any different if the power to declare war would be in the hands of the parliament instead of just the Prime Minister alone? There could be arguments supporting it and arguments going against it. As a result, the citizens of the UK saw a codified constitution as a necessity at that moment. However, there are many advantages of an uncodified constitution. The biggest advantage is the idea of flexibility. As societies are changing, and societal norms take new forms, it is very important for the constitution of countries to adapt to that quickly, as a country’s constitution should be in the best interest for its citizens. In countries with codified constitutions, inflexibility has proven to be a problem multiple times. For example, the US has a strict codified constitution. In the recent years, gun laws have been criticized and objected upon, by the citizens in the wake of the increasingly high rate of crimes involving guns. It has raised many questions regarding gun laws, and whether they should be amended. Although many were in favor, and many attempts were made to change laws, it has proven to be extremely difficult for gun laws to be amended. The right to bear arms is outlined in the 2nd amendment to the US constitution, and currently, the US has the highest gun ownership rates in the world - 9
In conclusion, equivalent contentions on the constitution being static or adaptable demonstrates that certain parts of looking at the constitution shows alternate points of view on whether it adjusts to the needs of the Australian public. Subsequently, the general population ought to be mindful of any alterations made or to be made to guarantee the significance and needs of the nation is fulfilled.
Bamforth,N. Int. Jnl. Of constitutional law. Current issues in United Kingdom constitutionalism: An introduction 2011 9 (1) 79-85 doi: 10.1093/icon/mor029 (Date of Access: 12/12/11)
This article briefly discusses the current rights of mainland American citizens and their rights to bear arms. Although it’s an amendment for a citizen of the United States to bear arms, most people today probably won’t ever need to or have to. With that being said, gun control in the U.S. is still a problem year in and year out. I believe that yes, we do have a problem with gun control within the United States. My first thoughts on this issue raised in the article are that the Supreme Court should continue to ban weapons within the District of Columbia.
America—the land of the free and the home of the brave. Not only are these words sung in the national anthem, but they can even be considered a motto for the country. In the US, residents and citizens have many rights that people in other countries can only dream about. They have the right to practice freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and many other freedoms thanks to the founding fathers and the United States Constitution. But there are some very controversial rights as well. What about the second amendment – the right to bear arms? While America is considered one of the freest countries in the world, we might ask ourselves: is it too free? Although the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, the safety of the nation is far more important. America should use Australia as a model when it comes to gun laws. Stricter, more extensive background checks, requiring permits and training, and the prohibition of automatic and semi-automatic guns must be enforced in order to help lower crime rates and ensure American citizen’s safety.
In creating the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but also an understanding reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many problems in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is clear that the founders’ perspectives as white, wealthy or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the creation and implementation of The Constitution.
One of the most influential and celebrated scholars of British consistutional law , Professor A.V Dicey, once declared parliamentary soverignity as “the dominant feature of our political insitutions” . This inital account of parliamentray soverginity involved two fundamental components, fistly :that the Queen-in-Parliament the “right to make or unmake any law whatever” and that secondly “no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.” . However this Diceyian notion though an established principle of our constitution now lies uneasy amongst a myriad of contemporary challenges such as our membership of the European Union, the Human Rights Act and a spread of law making authority known as ‘Devolution’. In this essay I shall set out to assess the impact of each of these challenges upon the immutability of the traditional concept of parliamentary sovereignty in the British constitution.
Marshall believes “conventions are non-legal rules regulating the way in which legal rules shall be applied”[2]. Being a major part of the British constitution, they function as a “record of successful applications or precedents”[3] and accept the “patterns of social behaviour and opinion”[4] of an evolutionary nation. Even though they are not enforced by courts, due to their constant progression adapting to current events, these rules of constitutional behaviour are overlapping law and taking over the practice of political appointments. In the following essay we will explain how constitutional conventions differ from laws and discuss their general purpose and importance. Constitutional conventions are different from laws in their enforcement.
Whenever we talk about the British constitutional system, the first thing we should acknowledge is that we are examining the sources that shape up the UK constitution. The framework of how the UK constitution operates is not present in one single location, it is in various forms. Obviously the sources that we are talking about here are from a legal aspect. Now whilst most of the sources of the UK constitution exist in a written form, there is a lack of a single document. Hence it is better to think of it as uncodified.
The second amendment to the US Constitution shows that it is unconstitutional to have complete and total gun control. The second amendment states that “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This means that it is the right of an American citizen, abiding by the constitution, has the right to bear arms. Currently, there are over three hundred and seven billion people residing as American citizens. Within the homes of these Americans, forty five percent have a registered gun in their household. As a diverse nation, there are many reasons why there are guns located within a household. Sixty percent stated the gun is used for protection against int...
... idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty: The Controlling Factor of Legality in the British Constitution’ (2008) OJLS 709.
Although the Second Amendment prevents the federal government from completely banning guns in America, limited restrictions are allowed on the distribution and possession of firearms. Certain groups of people such as criminals, the mentally unstable, and soldiers dishonorably discharged from the military are prohibited from possessing or interacting with firearms (Flynn). These restrictions are enforced by background checks in some states on both a state and federal level. However, gun laws vary from state to state and are often not thorough enough; the background checks are flawed due to lack of information and misinformation, and guns can easily end up in the hands of criminals and malevolent individuals. The ease of obtaining a firearm in America fosters crime and a dangerous environment. Hence, the Second Amendment should be reinterpreted so that stricter gun laws can be implemented because modern citizens do not require guns, current background checks are flawed, gun...
The United States Constitution is founded on the principles of natural law. This law governs and transcends any political activity is a state theory based on the idea of social contract, the people are the source and basis of the authority of the rulers. The Constitution defines the principles of a federation that recognizes both levels of government based on the separation and balance of powers and the division of responsibilities between the federal state (foreign policy, defense, foreign trade and between States, etc.) and the Federated States (justice, health, protection of individual rights, education, etc.). The constitution is therefore much more than a piece of legislation because it relates to the greatest debates of American
The. A constitution is the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation is governed. Our founding fathers created the US Constitution to set specific standards for our country. We must ask ourselves why our founding fathers created the Constitution in the first place. America revolted against the British due to their monarchy form of government.
The Differences Between the UK and US Constitutions The question requires us to see the difference between the UK and US constitutions of the political systems and then analyse whether there is actually a difference between the two. Constitution specifies the powers of the state and the institutions or offices, which have and excise state power. “A state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” (Max Weber). There are two types of constitutions negative constitutions which goes beyond principles that are beyond people’s wishes this is common in the US constitution. Whereas the positive constitution is an example of the British constitutions constructed so that public wishes are kept.
The word ‘constitution’ is commonly used to describe a written legal document that embodies a set of rules and principles that ‘establish and regulate or govern the government’ of a country. The United Kingdom, however, does not have such a document.